I just want to add, for the record, that this isn't something that tye did entirely on his own. There are a couple of areas where the helperelves can discuss various issues that come up.

The discussion was nearly unamimous for taking some action, as mistakes have been made in the past (as well as a certain amount of abuse). A couple of voices were raised about perhaps allowing self-approval, but the point about it being fairly easy to find someone else to approve the node was well-taken.

I would only ask (again) that if you reply to a node and you have access to the Approval nodelet, then please make certain that the root note has been Approved. I'm still seeing a lot of nodes that are not being approved.

As far as still seeing a lot of nodes that are not being approved, that's one of my beefs with not allowing self approval.

It makes more work. As a level 10 monk,
I can be trusted to know what nodes are worth approving and what nodes are not, unless they are my own? I don't hit the
SOPW page often, usually I go to Newest Nodes, so it's easy to read a node, even answer it without noticing the root node
has not been approved. I do make an effort to hit SOPW occasionally and see what needs approving.

I hate to think that on a weekend or late night, that if I face a "dead in the water" problem, that I might not get help
because the few monks logged in are not of a high enough level to see it. (TheDamian was < level 5 not that long ago)

I disagree. It means that everyone has to wait for another experienced monk to revaluate and approve your work.

If anything, this is precisely what we've asked of folks all along. Simply wait for someone else to verify that you haven't temporarily lost your sanity. Unfortunately, that's not being honored by certain members of out community.

To my mind, the additional work (if any) greatly offsets the risk of a sneaky troll.

As a level 10 monks, I can be trusted...

No, as a level 10 monk, you are subjected to the same level of peer review as a first time novice. To my mind, that's more democratic because it helps ensure that everyone is treated reasonably fairly.

"Dead in the water" problem

Given the rather large number of international members, it's very unlikely that you won't see a reply within short order. Besides, there are other avenues you can pursue for more immediate response, e.g. the IRC channels, UseNet, even paid support.

Along the same lines, it's likely that the people that can help you bail yourself out of water know that you can show unapproved content in Newest Nodes by changing a setting in your User Profile. Thus, you will likely not be penalized for not being able to approve your own node.

And as far as TheDamian goes, well, that may be true. And while I respect his experience and knowledge very, very highly, I doubt he's the only name in the rolls that can answer emergency posts.

And even if he is, he's not the only one that can approve nodes. Thus, all you have to do is a) make sure you post a reasonable node (by doing your homework first) and b) find someone online that can approve your node for you.

Your viewpoint was represented in the discussions I referred to. The overall consensus, though, was pretty heavily weighted in favor of removing both settings.

That's fine. As for your second point, I think you are taking it out of context. I without a doubt am "trusted" to approve or frontpage a node. I have the ability and occasionally even exercise it. I haven't seen (Though haven't been looking for it) really any abuse of the approval powers. Now frontpaging on the other hand....

Let's agree to disagree. I'm not that concerned about it. Though I will point out the fact that anyone over level 5 could fairly quickly boost an alternative nic to level 5 and approve/frontpage/etc their own nodes so I don't think you really solve anything. Anyone who really wants to whore, will.

As a level 10 monk, I can be trusted to know what nodes are worth approving and what nodes are not, unless they are my own?

Yes, exactly. Like I said, it is easy to develop a blind spot when it comes to your own writing. I've seen it happen. I've even had high-level monks /msg me asking to unapprove their question shortly after it happens.

Just a thought, wouldn't a vote on this been appropriate?

Well, in my experience, a full-blown vote is rarely going to give you a great indication. The results of the vote are highly influenced by extraneous items like the wording of the question (or even the replies). And, frankly, I don't consider this particular issue nearly big enough to warrant such effort.

If this is an unpopular change, we'll certainly know fairly soon due to this announcement and its replies. And this change isn't something that will be difficult to undo.

When I first mentioned this idea, I got negative feedback from several people. So I dropped it. Today, I got lots of positive feedback (from multiple people in multiple forums including the chatterbox, editors' wiki, and #perlmonks). I specifically sought out people who had previously been against it and got positive feedback from them as well. So I did call for a limited set of votes.

Personally, I don't feel that strongly either way on the self-approval issue itself. But I do feel strongly that just biting the bullet and disallowing self-approval will more thoroughly retire the issue than allowing self-approval but not self-frontpaging. I predict that, soon enough, the vast majority of monks will just come to accept that you don't approve your own nodes.

And I predict that allowing self-approval would result in this issue being discussed over and over again when someone notices that only one of the checkboxes is disabled for their own nodes, that someone has approved their own node of questionable value, etc.

I might not get help because the few monks logged in are not of a high enough level to see it.

I'd s/see/approve/. You can't make nodes that low-level monks can't see. Approval mostly makes them easier for infrequent visitors to notice. And even AnonyMonk can see the Chatterbox, so feel free to promote your node there. But I think this is a particularly unlikely scenario, especially these days (and I don't consider developing a blind spot to one's own question to be unlikely). I think footpad addresses this point well so I'll defer further comment.